Marc Bergevin: At the End o'da Day

[Habs Halifax]

1- He had the 3rd overall. That's a substantial asset. Give it a rest.
2- Here's a crazy idea....If you have issues at center, use the 3rd overall center you just drafted....at center. Wowzer!! Mind....Blown!!
3- Why exactly do we have to trade for those guys? You don't know about any trades until they happen. We had assets we could have moved. That's the goddamn point. Maybe other teams wouldn't want them. Or, maybe we could have traded for a player that ended up remaining on his team, just like Gallagher was never traded. It doesn't mean we could have traded him though now does it? Pacioretty hasn't been moved yet, are we to believe it's because we can't get anything significant in return for him? What a foolish thought that would be.
So you see why this game of yours is quite freaking silly?..

Btw, what claim have I made other than "we had valuable assets (referring to Max, PK, Price, Gallagher, Galch, Markov, Plek, Eller)"? Enlighten me please.

3. Where is your example trades? Come on man. Show us something to back up your stance. You said Bergevin failed to improve on Price, Subban, Patch, Gallagher, Eller, Galchenyuk with vets like Pleky and Markov.

Show me what we could of traded for the guys who were actually traded starting in 2012? Come up with examples to support your opinion?

 

[417]

I couldn't have explained it better myself (Bolded part). Ignoring that 4 year span and adding the great 2007 year to make it look better is nonsense. They say there is cherry picking going on to make Bergevin look good (which is not the case) and don't realize how foolish it looks in the process.

Personally, I have no vested interest in trying to make Gainey/Gauthier/Bergevin look good/bad...the facts are the facts.

If you're **** at the draft table for 4 straight years, you're eventually going to feel it down the road at some point.

Price, Subban, Patch, Gallagher and vets like Pleky and Markov. That's it. The drop off after that was huge! You don't win a cup with no depth at center and a poor prospect pool. In hindsight, we should of traded Pleky and Markov when we had the chance and not go for the rebound year in 2012. A smart GM would of realized that we had a major gap in our prospect pool and it would of been difficult to fill the holes moving forward through UFA and trades. This is the error Bergevin made IMO. He fell into the trap where he believed in our team and we were close. However, we lacked offensive power and depth at center. False hope and yes, it's hindsight evaluation

Don't even get me started on the bolded

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

3. It was an error. Show me a package trade that rivals what Carter, Richards, RyJo, ROR or any other asset you think helps the Habs who was traded from 2012-2016 ish. I want to see how easy you think it was to improve. What UFA's could we sign? Put your money where your mouth is.

Kessel was a player that went for a cheap return. The Habs could have easily outbid Pittsburgh. Bergevin prefers to wait until the player has no value to trade him instead of packaging him in a trade: Leblanc, Beaulieu, Fucale, McCarron and Tinordi all have once had decent value.

There was a big age gap between Markov and Plekanec and Subban, Price and Pacioretty. In that situation you either trade the 2 oldest player and build around your Young core or you buy and go for it while your 2 veteran are still productive player. Bergevin did neither and the team achieved Nothing.

The same situation is happening now except the team is in no position to contend. Pacioretty, Price, Byron, Plekanec and Weber should all be trade and team should tank hard in the next 2 year to rebuild the team but Bergevin will do almost Nothing and the team will continue to achieve Nothing.

 

[DAChampion]

1- He had the 3rd overall. That's a substantial asset. Give it a rest.
2- Here's a crazy idea....If you have issues at center, use the 3rd overall center you just drafted....at center. Wowzer!! Mind....Blown!!
3- Why exactly do we have to trade for those guys? You don't know about any trades until they happen. We had assets we could have moved. That's the goddamn point. Maybe other teams wouldn't want them. Or, maybe we could have traded for a player that ended up remaining on his team, just like Gallagher was never traded. It doesn't mean we could have traded him though now does it? Pacioretty hasn't been moved yet, are we to believe it's because we can't get anything significant in return for him? What a foolish thought that would be.
So you see why this game of yours is quite freaking silly?..

Btw, what claim have I made other than "we had valuable assets (referring to Max, PK, Price, Gallagher, Galch, Markov, Plek, Eller)"? Enlighten me please.

You know how the Bergevin defenders look bad now that Subban, Eller, Radulov, and Pateryn have all done better with their other teams?

Eller and Pateryn were supposed to be in Europe by now.
Radulov was supposed to have gone Gomez now that the mercenary got his paycheck.
Subban was supposed to have become exposed by the superior forwards in the western conference.

Nope, nope, and nope.

It's going to look much worse if Galchenyuk continues to outproduce their expectations.

 

[Belial]

For anyone who still doubts how bad Bergevin is, should look at these numbers:

Since everybody always focus on the mistakes done by the GMs, and usually just focus on this, rather than see the full picture, yes yes, we know, all the GMs we've had commited huge mistakes, Serge Savard included.

So what I wanted to know is which GM was the best at acquiring talent, whether through the draft, trades or free agency. Since both Gauthier and Savard did less than 3 years and Houle, Gainey and Bergevin all had more than 6 years, I compiled a top 5 for the formers and a top 10 of the latters of all their best offensive acquisitions and their production with the team.

The number of top 5 and top 10 picks in brackets after the GM's PPG is based on what (drafted by the team) picks were needed to acquire those players.

In italic are players who went on to subsequent Habs management while the bolded are players drafted by the team.

In the last part, you will find total player points and games, both from regular season and the playoffs. After that are listed the assets that were needed to acquire those players through trades.


Houle 0,56 (o top 10 picks)
Souray 168/353
Markov 604/1079
Ryder 215/335
Ribeiro 158/294
Rucinski 300/447
Kovalenko 34/57
Corson 146/257
Richer 55/82
Weinrich 72/203
Zubrus 74/139

1826/3246

Total assets cost : Roy, Keane, Turgeon, Conroy, Fitzpatrick, Odelein, Brown, Mason, Recchi, 1st 1999, Malakhov



Savard 0,58 (0 top 10 picks)
Zednik 199/276
Gilmour 60/143
Plekanec 654/1068
Higgins 162/304
Bulis 138/315

1213/2106

Total assets cost : Linden, Zubrus, 2nd 2001



Gainey 0.64 (1 top 10 picks)
Subban 314/489
Pacioretty 467/664
Cammalleri 148/196
Kovalev 295/347
Streit 113/217
Desharnais 263/473
Tanguay 42/52
Gionta 201/348
Gomez 126/222
Kostitsyn 210/379

2179/3387

Total assets cost : Rivet, Balej, 1st 2008, 2nd 2009 McDonagh, Higgins, Valentenko



Gauthier 0,50 (0 top 10 picks)
Eller 172/472
Cole 67/101
Gallagher 260/446
Wisniewski 32/49
Kaberle 25/52

556/1120

Total assets cost : Halak, Spacek, 2nd 2011



Bergevin 0,51 (1 top3 pick, 1 top 10 pick)
Weber 61/110
Drouin 46/77
Radulov 62/82
Danault 72/161
Galchenyuk 268/446
Weise 69/181
Shaw 49/126
Byron 97/231
Vanek 25/35
Ryder 23/32

837/1636

Total assets cost : Subban, Sergachev, Cole, 2nd 2016, 2nd 2016, 2nd 2014, Weise, Fleishman



Now I know that as far as Bergevin is concerned, more than half of his drafts have not finished their development yet, but we can already see that he has a lot of ground to cover to catch-up on others on the list, and if he does so, chances are it will be because of high draft picks.

What a useless and completely lacking any sort of logic attempt to make a point!

If you want to make any sense with this weird comparison do the same list for Gainey who was hired in 2003 and till 2009! Exactly 6 years, that's what Bergevin got for the moment.

You're comparing apples and oranges here and trying to make a point...

Let's wait another 10 years and then you can compare Gainey to Bergevin!

Seriously...

Who here doubts that? There's like a 98% consensus on this board about Bergevin's qualifications as GM of this team.

That being said...good post

How is that post good? That comparison makes no sense because it's way too early to draw this kind of resume in Bergevin's case.

When Gainey resigned Pacioretty looked like a bust and PK was only starting his NHL career.

 

[Belial]

Package Eller and Markov for a great return? Are you joking?

EA Sports! It's in the game...

 

[417]

You know how the Bergevin defenders look bad now that Subban, Eller, Radulov, and Pateryn have all done better with their other teams?

Eller and Pateryn were supposed to be in Europe by now.
Radulov was supposed to have gone Gomez now that the mercenary got his paycheck.
Subban was supposed to have become exposed by the superior forwards in the western conference.

Nope, nope, and nope.

It's going to look much worse if Galchenyuk continues to outproduce their expectations.

Any way we can have a moratorium on the term "Bergevin defenders"?

There are like 2 people left on planet earth who would qualify as such.

I think we can stop couching arguments based on this pretty much non-existent group.

 

[417]

How is that post good? That comparison makes no sense because it's way too early to draw this kind of resume in Bergevin's case.

When Gainey resigned Pacioretty looked like a bust and PK was only starting his NHL career.

Because I liked the content shared...he clearly put a lot of work into it, went all the way back to the Rejean Houle years and he even made sure to point out a caveat regarding the development of players drafted by Bergevin not being complete yet.

The analysis is based on available information and even takes into account that it's not 100% complete.

It's as objective as it can be.

 

[DAChampion]

Any way we can have a moratorium on the term "Bergevin defenders"?

There are like 2 people left on planet earth who would qualify as such.

I think we can stop couching arguments based on this pretty much non-existent group.

Request declined.

But tell you what, I'm going to add variety. Henceforth, I'll often be using the term "Bergevin apologists".

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

Bergevin only creates problems:

- trade Subban for Weber a player 4 years older with no add-on from Nashville. Subban is in his prime Weber is on the injury list.

- Trade 2 high 2nd round pick for an injury prone and useless player in Shaw. Girard would at least be a Habs without that trade. Really bad trade

- sign a useless Alzner for 5 years at 4.6 millions. Terrible. That money could have been use to retain Markov and Radulov.

- sign a goalie for 8 years at 10.5 millions with a NTC on top of it and then the team need a rebuild before that contract even start. Great foresight.

Trade Sergachev and Galchenyuk without a center coming back. If he had package both togheter( or pacioretty instead of Galchenyuk) i think they would had have a shot at Draisaitl or Tavares.

Bergevin should already be fired. The day he proposed to trade Subban for Weber is the day he should have been fired. Right now, there is no player Worth watching the team outside of Gallagher. I hope the fans going to the Bell center this year go there for watching the other team top players because otherwise they have no reasons to buy tickets. Terrible owner and terrible GM.

 

[Belial]

Because I liked the content shared...he clearly put a lot of work into it, went all the way back to the Rejean Houle years and he even made sure to point out a caveat regarding the development of players drafted by Bergevin not being complete yet.

The analysis is based on available information and even takes into account that it's not 100% complete.

It's as objective as it can be.

That post starts with the words

For anyone who still doubts how bad Bergevin is, should look at these numbers:

And no, that post is not objective at all! The stats are good and all but the conclusion is completely biased.

Good job for the research but it's useless because as I already said he's comparing 15 years of Gainey and 15 years+ of Houle and Savard with 6 years of Bergevin. That just makes no sense.

 

[417]

That post starts with the words

Yes, and I did call him out on that portion of his post.

And no, that post is not objective at all! The stats are good and all but the conclusion is completely biased.

Good job for the research but it's useless because as I already said he's comparing 15 years of Gainey and 15 years+ of Houle and Savard with 6 years of Bergevin. That just makes no sense.

Well now you know why I wrote

"good post"

But the only conclusion he reached was that it's going to take Bergevin a lot of work to catch up. I don't see what's not objective about that.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Kessel was a player that went for a cheap return. The Habs could have easily outbid Pittsburgh. Bergevin prefers to wait until the player has no value to trade him instead of packaging him in a trade: Leblanc, Beaulieu, Fucale, McCarron and Tinordi all have once had decent value.

There was a big age gap between Markov and Plekanec and Subban, Price and Pacioretty. In that situation you either trade the 2 oldest player and build around your Young core or you buy and go for it while your 2 veteran are still productive player. Bergevin did neither and the team achieved Nothing.

The same situation is happening now except the team is in no position to contend. Pacioretty, Price, Byron, Plekanec and Weber should all be trade and team should tank hard in the next 2 year to rebuild the team but Bergevin will do almost Nothing and the team will continue to achieve Nothing.

Leafs were not trading Kessel to the Habs unless they ripped us off. Not saying it would of been impossible to swing a deal though. Lets entertain the idea of Kessel for futures. Do you think Kessel thrives on our team with no depth at center? Would he have been a game changer for us and deeper playoff runs or a cup like the Pens?

I agree. The age gap between vets like Pleky and Markov between Price, Subban, Patch, Gallagher, Eller, Galchenyuk was big. Bergevin was in error for not realizing how bad the prospect pool was and should of tried to rebuild and sell assets like Pleky and Markov. The returns would of been massive. Imagine what our team looks like today

I also agree a similar situation is happing today. I think the prospect pool is much better however. I do think the Gallagher and under core is solid but it needs more grade A prospects. We have plenty of grade B guys who will surprise and disappoint. More than most teams do.

There is opportunity with an accelerated rebuild IMO. Pieces we can get for Patch, Byron, Petry and more top 5 picks in the next 2 drafts. I'd also trade Weber but I'm trading him as a top 10 to top 20 NHL defenseman. Not trading him cause the other team wants to rip us off. I rather keep him and let Price/Weber lead our young group in the next 5 years ish if we don't get serious offers.

 

[Belial]

Yes, and I did call him out on that portion of his post.



Well now you know why I wrote

"good post"

But the only conclusion he reached was that it's going to take Bergevin a lot of work to catch up. I don't see what's not objective about that.

Yeah whatever man, you know exactly why that entire post was written! I mean, he said it in the first sentence!

That post is supposed to show us how terrible Bergevin is.

And once again, I told you that that post doesn't make a lot of sense because it's comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Laurentide]

Yeah whatever man, you know exactly why that entire post was written! I mean, he said it in the first sentence!

That post is supposed to show us how terrible Bergevin is.

And once again, I told you that that post doesn't make a lot of sense because it's comparing apples and oranges.

Do we really need to wait 10 years before declaring Bergevin a failure? We've got six years of results to go on and the trend only goes in one direction: downhill. There is no evidence to suggest that this trend will suddenly reverse itself. Four years from now. Ten years from now. A century from now. The verdict will be the same: Failure. Abject and utter failure.

 

[417]

Yeah whatever man, you know exactly why that entire post was written! I mean, he said it in the first sentence!

That post is supposed to show us how terrible Bergevin is.

And once again, I told you that that post doesn't make a lot of sense because it's comparing apples and oranges.

The post is supposed to allow you to draw your own conclusions from the data he provided...other than his first sentence, the post or data isn't slanted at all.

If you've surmised that it shows you he's terrible, then I guess it was effective research lol

The only conclusion i've really reached is we've had bad GM's since Serge Savard left.

 

[Belial]

Do we really need to wait 10 years before declaring Bergevin a failure? We've got six years of results to go on and the trend only goes in one direction: downhill. There is no evidence to suggest that this trend will suddenly reverse itself. Four years from now. Ten years from now. A century from now. The verdict will be the same: Failure. Abject and utter failure.

That post talks about drafted players and acquired talent over the course of a particular GM reign.

Drouin is 23, Domi is 23, Scherbak is 22, Lehkonen is 23, Hudon is 24, Danault is 25, DLR is 23, Mete is 20 and Juulsen is 21!

And I'm not even talking about guys like Poehling and Kotka.

You can crap on Bergevin all day long and think he's a complete moron but I can assure you that those guys I listed will put up points in the NHL in the next 5-10 years and that list will change.

So yeah, that list is useless right now.

 

[Censored Toad]

Do we really need to wait 10 years before declaring Bergevin a failure? We've got six years of results to go on and the trend only goes in one direction: downhill. There is no evidence to suggest that this trend will suddenly reverse itself. Four years from now. Ten years from now. A century from now. The verdict will be the same: Failure. Abject and utter failure.

but but but the draft picks from this year!!! WE NEED TO WAIT TO SEE HOW THEY DEVELOP!

I like this post, because when you boil it all down.. the sum of Marc tenure as the GM can be summed up in one word. Failure

just as you have said.

He has failed as a GM.

You could argue that Marc was handcuffed by the previous management ( A very common move in the politics game) but ultimately "Its On ME." if you are in a bad place cause of the previous management, its your job (albeit harder) to improve the team. I 100% disagree that with Bergie was railed by the previous management but regardless.... the team is trending downwards. Thats on him.

Marc has been nothing short of a disaster for this team.
You cannot spin/ cherry pick/ "misunderstand" the information in front of you.

The longer Marc has been in charge of the team, the worse the team has performed with respect to overall trends.

He is bad and you are bad for thinking he isn't bad !!!

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Perhaps it can also be explained by Gainey's terrible trade for Gomez...maybe McDonagh could of helped bridge the gap between Markov's absence & Hamrlik's decline?

I remember exactly what things were like in "Habland" by the time Gainey/Gauthier resigned/fired.

Things at the end of 2011-2012 were trending down at the same rate as they are trending down now in 2017-2018...that's exactly what your graph shows here.

And just before anyone gets an idea i'm trying to make Bergevin look better than others.

Gainey, Gauthier & Bergevin are all the same to me. You guys want to split heirs over who was slighty "less worse"...go ahead.

I don't think it matters, none of them have had any vision that would realistically bring this team a Stanley Cup...they ALL failed in acquiring that elusive #1C, all of them built teams based on having goalies play above their heads for them to have any shot.

God you're being so ridiculous and biased you don't even think your arguments through.

That 12 dive is not the same as this year. And it's not because of Gomez that dive happened. Gomez produced 41 points in 45 games when he played with Markov in 09-10.

What great center did we get to replace Gomez in the summer of 12? None.

The rise that came after 12 was due to Markov putting the team back to a level that it HISTORICALLY has with him in the lineup. And the Impact players who were reaching their developemental peak like Pac, PK and Price.

Bryson said they were trending upwards, and upward trends are not always a constant rise, their can be valleys, the peak rose up again after 12 and that's because they were indeed trending upwards.

And we won't be seeing the same this year. The historical peak (in post Roy era) of 2015 was due to Timmins and Gainey's work. No matter if they didn't accomplish the ultimate goal, it was still far better than what we lived in the late 90's and what we are living now.

Your reaction to Bryson's comment that they were trending upward was very juvenile, and your inability to actually think it through once you get overwhelming proof that it was the case (that peak in 13 is not due to Bergevin).

There is a huge difference between the Houle years and the years that follow, we can see Houle and Savard's impact on the draft with the small rise between 01 and 03, and impacts in the years following 03, but afterwards and up to 2015, that was all Gainey, and there wasn't much missing and was the closet we've been in 25 years and that's mainly because of Gainey and Timmins.


You're being really childish if you can't see the different impact each of them had.

Anybody who just equates those 5 GMs is being biased and/or dishonest and just plain intellectually lazy.

Now I haven't read your response to my other post yet, but I'm sure it's the same futile and lazy discourse of equating everything. Here's something original, admit you were wrong back then, and how Bergevin is much worse.

There's no similar rise to 2013 coming next season. That sorta rise won't be happening anytime soom. The canyon at the end of the graph will stay close and probably under the 50%win mark for the foreseeable future. This will show a constant rise all throughout the impact of Gainey's years, and the impact of those drafts on the early part of Bergevin's term, and then a steep decline at the end of Bergevin's term.

One goes up constantly, the other went down drastically.

Yes, I'm extrapolating, but based on a certain overwhelming certitude, which most here share, that the Habs won't be rising much over ,500 hockey in the next few seasons. In summer 2012, I said the team would surely make the playoffs unless Markov is not back to form, I even went as far as saying they'd finish in the top 5 of the conference, and that prediction wasn't hard to make. I knew that all that needed to happen was for Subban and Markov to not get injured for any amount of the time and the Habs would have a winning record and more. I was right. And next season, I'm predicting a slight rise in points, but nothing drastic and nothing that'll bring us over ,500. Let's see if I'm right.

Gainey built, Bergevin destroyed. If you can't realize that, there's not point in discussing this further.

 

[Laurentide]

Danault is not going to suddenly become something he is not. At 25 he is what he is: bottom six on a good team. Neither Mete nor Juulsen will ever be top pairing guys.

Drouin and Scherbak are the only players listed who have any chance to become something special because they have the God-given talent to do so. Everybody else is what their talent level says they are: average.

 

[Belial]

The post is supposed to allow you to draw your own conclusions from the data he provided...other than his first sentence, the post or data isn't slanted at all.

If you've surmised that it shows you he's terrible, then I guess it was effective research lol

The only conclusion i've really reached is we've had bad GM's since Serge Savard left.

Well, that's exactly my point, it was supposed to show us how terrible Bergevin is but, in reality, it shows nothing or it's inconclusive as it's still too early to make a solid conclusion.

 

[Kriss E]

3. Where is your example trades? Come on man. Show us something to back up your stance. You said Bergevin failed to improve on Price, Subban, Patch, Gallagher, Eller, Galchenyuk with vets like Pleky and Markov.

Show me what we could of traded for the guys who were actually traded starting in 2012? Come up with examples to support your opinion?

Listing names is completely missing the point. But hey, forget trades. I wanted Jagr and Gilbert in 13-14, instead we got Briere-Murray. Savvy.

Yes he failed to improve. That is a fact at this point. If it wasn't clear for you then, it should definitely be now. Get with the times.

 

[DAChampion]

Listing names is completely missing the point. But hey, forget trades. I wanted Jagr and Gilbert in 13-14, instead we got Briere-Murray. Savvy.

Yes he failed to improve. That is a fact at this point. Get with the times junior.

Not getting Jagr was catastrophically stupid.

 

[Kriss E]

Leafs were not trading Kessel to the Habs

Precisely why it's so pointless to get into these "show me a trade" discussions with you.
Whatever name is brought forward, you will just argue against. It's a silly game as I said right from the start.
Not to mention, it is completely missing the point.

Fact is we had valuable players. Valuable players are tradeable. Could we have traded for some guys and end up improving? I don't see why not. It's also very possible we end up doing some incredibly stupid trade like Subban for Weber. That is besides the point though.
f***ing trades up as nothing to do with whether or not we had valuable assets to move.
You like to lump everything together because you just don't want to admit it. Such silliness, and that's why a lot of posters here don't take you seriously.

 

[Laurentide]

but but but the draft picks from this year!!! WE NEED TO WAIT TO SEE HOW THEY DEVELOP!

I like this post, because when you boil it all down.. the sum of Marc tenure as the GM can be summed up in one word. Failure

just as you have said.

He has failed as a GM.

You could argue that Marc was handcuffed by the previous management ( A very common move in the politics game) but ultimately "Its On ME." if you are in a bad place cause of the previous management, its your job (albeit harder) to improve the team. I 100% disagree that with Bergie was railed by the previous management but regardless.... the team is trending downwards. Thats on him.

Marc has been nothing short of a disaster for this team.
You cannot spin/ cherry pick/ "misunderstand" the information in front of you.

The longer Marc has been in charge of the team, the worse the team has performed with respect to overall trends.

He is bad and you are bad for thinking he isn't bad !!!

Again I go back to what I've always said: he knew what he was getting into when he interviewed for the job. Of course the previous regime screwed up. That's why the job was open for you to apply for in the first place! So no, you don't get to lay the blame for your failure at the doorstep of the guy you replaced. You went into this thing with your eyes wide open. You wanted the job, you asked for the job and you got the job. Now you have to do the damn job. Dat's h'it, dat's h'all.

Do we fans have to start a Go Fund Me page to raise money to hire Bill Belichik on a one day contract just to tell Bergevin to "Do your job" on a continuous loop for 8 hours in order for the message to finally sink in? This is your mess, Marc. And when you are eventually fired we aren't going to give the next guy a mulligan just because you left that mess. Why? Because just like you the next guy is going to know ahead of time that he's inheriting a team that someone else left in a shambles. His accepting the job means that he understands and accepts these conditions. Once you sign on the line that is dotted and cash your first paycheck, everything that happens from that point on IS ALL YOUR FAULT!